03 March, 2006

Bush visits India



Unnecessary

(A few "Letters to the editor" published on 3rd March, 2006)

That Mr. Bush is the head of the most powerful nation does not mean we have to extend a royal welcome to him. His hands are soiled with the blood of mankind, his head is cluttered with self-centred missions, and his heart is immune to the wails of humanity. The peace he trumpets cannot come from the policies he follows — fighting needless wars and killing the innocent.

Salil Gewali,
Shillong

In view of U.S. visas, job opportunities, and possible business ventures, our own people have let down Gandhi, who gave the greatest gift of non-violence to the world. They are welcoming one who is responsible for killing thousands around the world, running underground prisons, and treating fellow humans in the most inhumane way. I want to ask every Indian: Would the man who launched the non-cooperation movement against the British have shaken hands with Mr. Bush?

Pardeep Kansal,
Bathinda, Punjab


The Bush flu has already destroyed the Mesopotamian civilisation and set its sights on the Persian civilisation. It is hoped the Indian civilisation escapes.

R. Aravind,
Tirunelveli, T.N.

By now, Mr. Bush should be accustomed to protests in every state he visits. Anyone who misguides his citizens, and is remorseless about invading sovereign republics under a false pretext is a non-welcome entity in our land that epitomises non-violence as a way of life.

Yasmin Banu,
Abu Dhabi, UAE

Why are dollars welcome but not Mr. Bush? Because the dollars are part of the wages honestly earned. Young engineers toiling round the clock in MNCs are pampered with buffets in star hotels for their commendable work. Doctors burn the midnight oil to get through not only USMLE but many other competitive examinations. Winding queues outside the consulates are a reflection of the U.S.' scant regard for others, an attitude evident in the affluent bureaucracy of the American embassies.

True, Gandhi was kindly disposed towards his enemies (Letters, March 1). But that did not prevent us from punishing his assassins.

T. Ramadas,
Visakhapatnam, A.P.

The unprecedented security arrangements for Mr. Bush's visit are in total contrast to the 1947 padyatra of Gandhiji when communal riots broke out in Naokhali immediately after Independence. Gandhiji vehemently opposed any security for himself. It was because he had a clean conscience. Only a person who has something to fear requires elaborate security.

K.S.S. Sarma,
Kurnool, A.P.

It is all very well to invoke the athithi devo bhava concept (Letters, March 2). But let us also recall Vishnu's Vamana avtaar, in which he came as a guest of King Mahabali.

He was accorded the warmest of welcomes and asked to seek any gift of his choice. Vamana sought just three feet of land and that was the end of Mahabali.

S. Sathiyamoorthy,
Nagpur

3 comments:

The Eternally Confused... said...

Ha Ha Ha... LOVED the gentleman who quoted god in ur names avatar... athithi devo bahava anna atithi illu muncheste risk ee kada mari... but that example potrays India as the demon and Bush as ahem! Trivikram :)
are u in concurrence? :))

త్రివిక్రమ్ Trivikram said...

As you yourself had pointed out, our epics are open for a hundred interpretations. One such interpretation of the Bali episode is that he was a RIGHTEOUS monarch. Even in the orthodox Vaishnavite puranas, there are no serious allegations against him. (If there were any, Vishnu wouldn't need to go to him as a wicked Trivikram). It is only that Bali didn't recognise gods as superior to him. Any way they were earlier defeated by him and so he had scant regard for them. If we look at it this way, yes! Trivikram WAS the villain. :D

Any similarities between Bali's end and Christ's Crucifixion?

The Eternally Confused... said...

Yes, both refused to give in to one set of idealogies AND disparities of the idealogies have led to bloodshed ever since times immemorial... So it doesnt come as a surprise at all... In fact, how is one to say that Duryodhana is evil? Wasnt Dhritrashtra the elder of the brothers and wasnt Pandu merely discharging his duties as the king coz the right owner of that throne was incapable (?!? lets not forget dhritrashtra managed to rule over hastinapura for the complete period between pandus death and yudhishtira accession post - war...) So if the elder brothers eldest son is capable of ruling, then how is yudhistira entitled to the throne anyway! coz if by merely acession to the throne obliterates the kings claim to the throne, it should be shatrughna and not rama, lakshamana or bharatha who would rule over the crown as it ws shatrughna who discharged the duties of the king when rama lakshmana were in dandakaranya and bharatha at the nandigrama!
by the way, there has been a recent discovery of the Gospels of Judas wherein Christ praises Judas as a true disciple who has set Him free from his physical form... If that is what He thinks that who are we to label Judas as a traitor?!!?
one thing is for sure... as far as religion and spirtuality is concerned... to quote from Angels & Demons, "Science tells me God must exist. My mind tells me I will never understand God. And my heart tells me I am not meant to"